Caught giving a friend prescription medication

pudzey101

Hi all I was stopped today by an unmarked detivtive car and was found with 23 xanax and my friend had 8 which I had given him , all where confiscated ,wasn't arrested but they said I have to go to the station tomorrow get pics taken and give a full interview . Where do I stand here as the guard thinks I was selling them but I am prescribed them for severe anxiety stress ?

Pat Mustard

Speak to a solicitor before you do anything.

pudzey101

Yeah have a meeting with one in the morning before I go station

sam34

pudzey101 wrote: »

Hi all I was stopped today by an unmarked detivtive car and was found with 23 xanax and my friend had 8 which I had given him , all where confiscated ,wasn't arrested but they said I have to go to the station tomorrow get pics taken and give a full interview . Where do I stand here as the guard thinks I was selling them but I am prescribed them for severe anxiety stress ?

If you were prescribed them for "severe" symptoms, why were you giving some of them away? Do you not need them yourself? If it's a case that you don't need them, or don't need as many as you have been prescribed, have you told the prescribing doctor that? Does your friend's doctor know that they are sourcing prescription meds from a friend?

pudzey101

On the label it says take when needed , so some days I have to take none and would have plenty left over . What's the most likable outcome from this if ye could guess ?

allthedoyles

pudzey101 wrote: »

On the label it says take when needed , so some days I have to take none and would have plenty left over . What's the most likable outcome from this if ye could guess ?

You are admitting guilt on an internet forum , which can't help a likable outcome

pudzey101

Oh I am guilty yeah I admitted it . I also give them to my mam when she's stressed out of her head so what's the big deal? I am prescribed the medication and gave my buddy a few to calm he's nerves as he wasn't well recently

kingtut

pudzey101 wrote: »

Oh I am guilty yeah I admitted it . I also give them to my mam when she's stressed out of her head so what's the big deal? I am prescribed the medication and gave my buddy a few to calm he's nerves as he wasn't well recently

The big deal is that they were prescribed to you and not to anyone else.
You were assessed by a medical professional who said they were suitable for your usage, the same can't be said for your friend/mum when they have not been assessed.

BigCOB

Moral indignation aside, I'll answer your question. If it is your first offence of this nature and you can produce a letter from your doctor, nothing will come of it. You could even be cold enough to ask for the ones you were carrying to be returned but I wouldn't recommend that. The main concern you will have is you admitting you owned and supplied the ones your friend had, on that front I'd certainly be talking to a solicitor. Overall, with A clean record, I wouldn't be overly concerned.

No lecturer from anyone please, I'm just helping him on an anxiety front, probably more important given he has no meds to calm himself down lol

Pro Hoc Vice

pudzey101 wrote: »

Oh I am guilty yeah I admitted it . I also give them to my mam when she's stressed out of her head so what's the big deal? I am prescribed the medication and gave my buddy a few to calm he's nerves as he wasn't well recently

The big deal is that they are a controlled drug, while legal for you to have they are illegal for anyone other than a doctor or pharmacy to supply. Also benzodiazepines are a seriously addictive drug and should only be taken under medical supervision.

To sell or otherwise supply is an offence under section 15, some people would even say such drugs are more dangerous than for example cannabis.

If I remember the maximum penalty under section 15 misuse of drugs act in district court is 12 months and in the Circuit Court was 14 years I think the maximum is now life. A first offence should hopefully lead to only a slap on the wrist.

Take proper legal advice before you do anything else.

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The big deal is that they are a controlled drug, while legal for you to have they are illegal for anyone other than a doctor or pharmacy to supply. Also benzodiazepines are a seriously addictive drug and should only be taken under medical supervision.

To sell or otherwise supply is an offence under section 15, some people would even say such drugs are more dangerous than for example cannabis.

If I remember the maximum penalty under section 15 misuse of drugs act in district court is 12 months and in the Circuit Court was 14 years I think the maximum is now life. A first offence should hopefully lead to only a slap on the wrist.

Take proper legal advice before you do anything else.

Are you sure Xanax is a controlled drug?

sam34

pudzey101 wrote: »

Oh I am guilty yeah I admitted it . I also give them to my mam when she's stressed out of her head so what's the big deal? I am prescribed the medication and gave my buddy a few to calm he's nerves as he wasn't well recently

The big deal is you are not a medical professional qualified to assess and diagnose your mother and your friend, you have no idea if the Xanax is contraindicated with any other condition they may have or meds they may be on,(and thus is dangerous for them to take) and you are not legally entitled to supply prescribed drugs.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

Are you sure Xanax is a controlled drug?

You may be correct as it may only be a controlled under the 1988 Regs and not the 77 Act as amended, will have to double check when I have time to go through all the SI's.

pudzey101

The guarda was actually pretty cool he just said look it's not like ur caught with heroin or cocaine u where caught wiIth a few xanax tabs . But he thinks I'm
Lying about been prescribed them . I found my most recent cert and will produce tomorrow and I do really need them back as I have medadation !! Didn't think it was a big deal giving m friend a few as my mum often texts me to ask do I have any to spare as she also suffers with severe anxiety

Stheno

pudzey101 wrote: »

Oh I am guilty yeah I admitted it . I also give them to my mam when she's stressed out of her head so what's the big deal? I am prescribed the medication and gave my buddy a few to calm he's nerves as he wasn't well recently

Are you nuts? You are giving a prescription only medication out to people for whom it's not been prescribed?

I was once on very strong painkillers, so strong, and so many that my gp would add notes onto the prescription as to why it was such a big prescription.

They came with a list of side effects the length of my arm, I'd not even dream of giving one to anybody else, lest they come to harm.

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You may be correct as it may only be a controlled under the 1988 Regs and not the 77 Act as amended, will have to double check when I have time to go through all the SI's.

I don't think Xanax is a controlled drug and is not covered by the misuse of drugs regulations. It is covered by general medicinal products legislation.

That being the case, whether giving a tablet to your friend/family even represents a criminal offence is an open question. I'm certainly not aware of aNy prosecutions for it.

Survey upon survey has shown that sharing of medications is rife. While that is hardly a good idea, the idea that the HPRA or the courts would prosecute/convict people who 'innocently' give a Xanax to their buddy is scarcely credible.

(That's not advice OP, it's just general commentary)

challengemaster

pudzey101 wrote: »

my mum often texts me to ask do I have any to spare as she also suffers with severe anxiety

Why does she not go see a doctor and get her own prescription?

Larry Wildman

Just bring the prescription to the Gardai and that should be the end of it. My view is that they don't believe you re the prescription.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

I don't think Xanax is a controlled drug and is not covered by the misuse of drugs regulations. It is covered by general medicinal products legislation.

That being the case, whether giving a tablet to your friend/family even represents a criminal offence is an open question. I'm certainly not aware of aNy prosecutions for it.

Survey upon survey has shown that sharing of medications is rife. While that is hardly a good idea, the idea that the HPRA or the courts would prosecute/convict people who 'innocently' give a Xanax to their buddy is scarcely credible.

(That's not advice OP, it's just general commentary)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/si/0328.html

Schedule 4


(a) Alprazolam.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a684001.html


Alprazolam is used to treat anxiety disorders and panic disorder (sudden, unexpected attacks of extreme fear and worry about these attacks). Alprazolam is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain.

As I said I don't think its controlled under the 77 act but the 88 regs, so I agree not covered by section 3 or 15. But issues would arise under the 88 regs I think.

pudzey101

My mum runs out and I'm prescribed a stronger dose that's why , yeah il bring that in the morning u have it anyway just hope it doesn't go on record and give me a criminal charge . I certainly learned my lesson today

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

As I said I don't think its controlled under the 77 act but the 88 regs, so I agree not covered by section 3 or 15. But issues would arise under the 88 regs I think.

What's the relevance though?

Schedule 4 only relates to drugs subject to the requirements of articles 20, 21, 22 and 23, which don't seem to be especially relevant.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

What's the relevance though?

Schedule 4 only relates to drugs subject to the requirements of articles 20, 21, 22 and 23, which don't seem to be especially relevant.

As I said I don't think sections 3 or 15, unlike my first assertion, would apply as only covered by the 88 regs. But the general regulation 4 would apply, but I can find if that carries any penalty or not, sorry but schedule 4 does not apply to reg 4 (c) but it seems applies to (b)
(b) supply or offer to supply a controlled drug, or.

Stheno

pudzey101 wrote: »

My mum runs out and I'm prescribed a stronger dose that's why , yeah il bring that in the morning u have it anyway just hope it doesn't go on record and give me a criminal charge . I certainly learned my lesson today

Your mother needs to talk to her doctor about her dosage, and be a bit more disciplined about running out.

goz83

Topping up your mums dose if she runs out of the very same medication is one thing, but giving them to your buddy is idiotic. My doctor would only give me a weeks dose of diazepam at a time and only gave me a few doses, for severe pain. Diazepam is similar to Xanax, being from the same family. Imagine your friend had an allergic reaction, maybe going into anaphylactic shock. Help your friend by telling him to go see his GP.

LynnGrace

Purely from your own perspective, and looking out for your own health, I'd encourage your friend, and your mother to look out for their own health, and seek their own prescriptions, as appropriate.
Take care.

pudzey101

I was in Diazapam myself before but didn't suit me . I know was stupid thing to do . But I just handed him the file and said take 2 or 3 of those for your nerves, not knowing an unmarked car was behind me . Ohh well better take it on the chin and face the music in the morning , won't be something il ever be doing in the future again . Didn't think handing a friend a few xanax would be so serious tbh,

ruby37

If you have been on Xanax for any length of time and then try to come off them, you will then realise how serious a drug they are. The withdrawals are horrific. They are certainly not a drug to be passing on to people that haven't been prescribed them.

quadrifoglio verde

drkpower wrote: »

What's the relevance though?

Schedule 4 only relates to drugs subject to the requirements of articles 20, 21, 22 and 23, which don't seem to be especially relevant.

They're still a controlled drug so Part two of the Misuse of Drugs Regulation 1988 would apply, that is

4. (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a person shall not—

(b) supply or offer to supply a controlled drug.

MagicMarker

goz83 wrote: »

Topping up your mums dose if she runs out of the very same medication is one thing, but giving them to your buddy is idiotic. My doctor would only give me a weeks dose of diazepam at a time and only gave me a few doses, for severe pain. Diazepam is similar to Xanax, being from the same family. Imagine your friend had an allergic reaction, maybe going into anaphylactic shock. Help your friend by telling him to go see his GP.

What does a doctor do to ensure you don't suffer from an allergic reaction to a drug? I've been prescribed various drugs over the years but I've never gone through any test to make sure I'm not allergic to them.

If you're allergic to something, then you're probably only going to find out about it the hard way.

Little CuChulainn

As far as I am aware the active ingredient in xanex is a benzo which is a controlled drug. This means that if you don't go to them they'll probably come to you. Best to get to that solicitor first thing. I have known people to be charged under section 15 for both hoarding and passing on prescribed medication.

drkpower

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

They're still a controlled drug so Part two of the Misuse of Drugs Regulation 1988 would apply, that is

4. (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a person shall not—

(b) supply or offer to supply a controlled drug.

Thats correct, fair point.

Although, it is incredibly unlikley that a prosectutioin would be pursued in the hypothetical scenario presented by the OP. Where 'sharing' of prescribed drugs is so commonplace in Ireland, and where no prosecution has yet been taken in these circumstances, the OPs hypothetical case doesnt strike me as the most attractive one to bring. Of course, any prosecution would be made less attractive by the fatc that the 'supplier' needs to know (or have reasonable grounds to know) that Xanax is a controlled drug (although obviously thats a matter for evidence ultimately).

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

Thats correct, fair point.

Although, it is incredibly unlikley that a prosectutioin would be pursued in the hypothetical scenario presented by the OP. Where 'sharing' of prescribed drugs is so commonplace in Ireland, and where no prosecution has yet been taken in these circumstances, the OPs hypothetical case doesnt strike me as the most attractive one to bring. Of course, any prosecution would be made less attractive by the fatc that the 'supplier' needs to know (or have reasonable grounds to know) that Xanax is a controlled drug (although obviously thats a matter for evidence ultimately).

There is no need to know its a controlled drug. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Also the DC's up and down the country have had cases involving possession of prescription drugs, not sure if any involved zanax but I have been aware of such cases.

chopper6

Dont turn up for your "interview" and dont bother with legal advice.

If they didnt arrest you or caution you you have no case to answer.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

Dont turn up for your "interview" and dont bother with legal advice.

If they didnt arrest you or caution you you have no case to answer.

Lol wrong. So wrong.

If a crime has been committed, AGS have the evidence and all they have to do is issue a summons. Many many summary crimes have no power of arrest and so a summons issues.

pudzey101

I can't not turn up I need me medication back and just want to clear up what happened as I don't want to hear anymore about it in the future as it will come back to bite me when I least expect it

geeky

pudzey101 wrote: »

I can't not turn up I need me medication back and just want to clear up what happened as I don't want to hear anymore about it in the future as it will come back to bite me when I least expect it

Pudzey, amidst all the criticism there's solid advice.

- Go in with your prescription and/or any letter you may have from your doctor confirming that you've been prescribed the medication.
- Speak to a solicitor about the fact that you supplied them to a friend. Don't downplay it (or mention giving them to your mum). Presenting it as a daft mistake that you made when you were trying to be helpful is your best bet for a slap on the wrist or warning. The fact that no money changed hands is also in your favour.

pudzey101

Cheers geeky , have my form/script here with my latest 3 monthly on it . Thanks again il take this advice and mentione it to my solicitor before going In

brencork

Hi Pudzey, I think the advice of bringing your prescription to the Garda station and being honest is probably best.

Just out of interest though, why did the Garda stop you in the first place, and why did he search you?

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is no need to know its a controlled drug. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Also the DC's up and down the country have had cases involving possession of prescription drugs, not sure if any involved zanax but I have been aware of such cases.

'Ignorance of the law' is a specific defence in this case (or more specifically, not knowing (or having reasonable grounds to know) that it was a controlled drug is a defence).

I suspect the 'possession of prescription drugs' cases you are aware of are somewhat different to the hypothetical that the OP presents ('I gave a couple of xanax to my friend'). The reality is that a sizeable proportion of the population engage in such 'illegal' (assuming it is illegal) activity every day. That is not a good thing, but it is a reality that would clearly influence prosecution policy.

pudzey101

I was stopped because the guy I picked up was well known , just out now said il prob face a 200 fine and a conviction

Paulw

pudzey101 wrote: »

just out now said il prob face a 200 fine and a conviction

That conviction, more than likely, will prohibit you from travelling to the US and some other countries that require a visa.

It may be a very harsh lesson for you.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

'Ignorance of the law' is a specific defence in this case (or more specifically, not knowing (or having reasonable grounds to know) that it was a controlled drug is a defence).

I suspect the 'possession of prescription drugs' cases you are aware of are somewhat different to the hypothetical that the OP presents ('I gave a couple of xanax to my friend'). The reality is that a sizeable proportion of the population engage in such 'illegal' (assuming it is illegal) activity every day. That is not a good thing, but it is a reality that would clearly influence prosecution policy.

It would be interesting to hear such a defence run, I don't see it going anywhere. Hundreds of drugs are controlled by the original Act and SI's under the 77 Act and even more are controlled under Regulations, I would doubt other than well know drugs even people in the business could say a particular substance is controlled or not with out looking it up, otherwise someone could say I never knew x y or z drug was controlled. In any event the OP has now been told by AGS that he faces a conviction and fine, so my original view seems to be backed up by AGS. Even though I still cant find the penalty provisions that over Regualtion 4 of the 1988 Regs.

Pro Hoc Vice

pudzey101 wrote: »

I was stopped because the guy I picked up was well known , just out now said il prob face a 200 fine and a conviction

Did you talk to a solicitor.

chopper6

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Lol wrong. So wrong.

If a crime has been committed, AGS have the evidence and all they have to do is issue a summons. Many many summary crimes have no power of arrest and so a summons issues.

Well they certainly have lots more evidence now that the OP has probably incriminated himself.

A summons can take six months to come through and thats assuming the DPP reccomends that the case is brought to court.

This idea that people have that if they tell the cops everything they'll be nice a bout it and let them go is nonsense...without a statement the cops have almost nothing...thats why they asked the OP to come in for an "interview".

Having said that supplying tablets to a "well known" individual in a public place was a bit stupid to put it mildly.

chopper6

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did you talk to a solicitor.

Why?

So they can spin you a web of bullshiit and charge you for it??


My advice is this...WAIT til the summons is issued (IF) it gets issued.

If you are entitled to legal aid it will be apointed at the prelimenary hearing..if it isn't you'll have to pay for a solicitor.

Scrape together a few bob for the court poorbox and try at all cost to avoid a conviction...if you have no previous you should be okay.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they certainly have lots more evidence now that the OP has probably incriminated himself.

A summons can take six months to come through and thats assuming the DPP reccomends that the case is brought to court.

This idea that people have that if they tell the cops everything they'll be nice a bout it and let them go is nonsense...without a statement the cops have almost nothing...thats why they asked the OP to come in for an "interview".

Having said that supplying tablets to a "well known" individual in a public place was a bit stupid to put it mildly.

Just to clarify a few things a summons can be requested in a summary matter within 6 months, can be served whenever, the longest i saw was just over 8 years.

In most summary only matters the DPP has no involvement, and the decision is taken at local level by AGS.

It funny how the OP has now stated that 8 zanax tablets given to a "well known" person, interesting that.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

Why?

So they can spin you a web of bullshiit and charge you for it??


My advice is this...WAIT til the summons is issued (IF) it gets issued.

If you are entitled to legal aid it will be apointed at the prelimenary hearing..if it isn't you'll have to pay for a solicitor.

Scrape together a few bob for the court poorbox and try at all cost to avoid a conviction...if you have no previous you should be okay.

Because the person has now made admissions, has now I assume said, "I supplied 8 tablets that are a controlled drug, to a "well know person".

What bull****, a Solicitor could tell you the exact crime if any, the right to silence and what to expect from the local DJ. So if you call that bullsit I call it advice from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

You have a habit of giving advice which at its best is as you call it bull****.

digzy

Why do I get the feeling that op has a medical card......

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear such a defence run, I don't see it going anywhere. Hundreds of drugs are controlled by the original Act and SI's under the 77 Act and even more are controlled under Regulations, I would doubt other than well know drugs even people in the business could say a particular substance is controlled or not with out looking it up, otherwise someone could say I never knew x y or z drug was controlled. .

The defence is there, and it is quite clear in its terms. I'd say it would have a decent shot in a hypothetical case involving xanax, which is a relatively mild benzo, very often prescribed as a 'relaxant' or 'sleeping tablet'. The idea that the tablet your GP gave you to get a couple of hours sleep on a transatlantic flight is a 'controlled drug' might be a very big surprise to most normal people. Im a doctor and a lawyer, and to be honest, i didnt realise it was a controlled drug......

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

In any event the OP has now been told by AGS that he faces a conviction and fine, so my original view seems to be backed up by AGS. Even though I still cant find the penalty provisions that over Regualtion 4 of the 1988 Regs.

I wouldnt use what the OP says to back up much to be honest.

The reality is that the problem of people sharing prescription drugs is rife (i think a recent survey found that about 25% of students in Cork routinely did it). The prospects of someone being convicted for innocently sharing the likes of a few xanax is fanciful. At least i hope so, becasue otherwise, I and most of my family will be in trouble....

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

The defence is there, and it is quite clear in its terms. I'd say it would have a decent shot in a hypothetical case involving xanax, which is a relatively mild benzo, very often prescribed as a 'relaxant' or 'sleeping tablet'. The idea that the tablet your GP gave you to get a couple of hours sleep on a transatlantic flight is a 'controlled drug' might be a very big surprise to most normal people. Im a doctor and a lawyer, and to be honest, i didnt realise it was a controlled drug......



I wouldnt use what the OP says to back up much to be honest.

The reality is that the problem of people sharing prescription drugs is rife (i think a recent survey found that about 25% of students in Cork routinely did it). The prospects of someone being convicted for innocently sharing the likes of xanax is fanciful. At least i hope so, becasue otherwise, I and most of my family will be in trouble....

Seriously you are a doctor and did not know the problems with Benzo, http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/inquest-into-docs-fitness-to-practice-adjourned-428383.html I sat through that case and can tell you such issues are taken very seriously by the Medical Council.

I am a lawyer and I can say with certainty that defence wont work. It is a 4 year ban for intoxicated driving after taking codein, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html that excuse I did not know thats a issue, I know of no doctor who advices of that issue, even though I advice all doctors I know to do so. I am personally aware of a number of such convictions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/hse-to-develop-policy-to-tackle-benzodiazepines-overuse-152398.html

BTW the everyone is doing it excuse is not a goodone either, for the person caught, in any case in this OP the poster admits to supplying 8 tablets to a "well known" person. Not really a family member giving a tablet to a brother. BTW I think that anyone who does so is wrong and I will never take such medication from another person.

BTW if the OP's statements don't back up much why are we discussing the issue. I know for a fact and have seen people convicted of possession of prescribed drugs, I have seen issues with the Medical Council in relation to Benzo prescribing.

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Seriously you are a doctor and did not know the problems with Benzo, http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/inquest-into-docs-fitness-to-practice-adjourned-428383.html I sat through that case and can tell you such issues are taken very seriously by the Medical Council.

I am a lawyer and I can say with certainty that defence wont work. It is a 4 year ban for intoxicated driving after taking codein, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html that excuse I did not know thats a issue, I know of no doctor who advices of that issue, even though I advice all doctors I know to do so. I am personally aware of a number of such convictions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/hse-to-develop-policy-to-tackle-benzodiazepines-overuse-152398.html

BTW the everyone is doing it excuse is not a goodone either, for the person caught, in any case in this OP the poster admits to supplying 8 tablets to a "well known" person. Not really a family member giving a tablet to a brother. BTW I think that anyone who does so is wrong and I will never take such medication from another person.

BTW if the OP's statements don't back up much why are we discussing the issue. I know for a fact and have seen people convicted of possession of prescribed drugs, I have seen issues with the Medical Council in relation to Benzo prescribing.

Jeez, settle down there.

When did I say "I did not know the problems with Benzo"?:rolleyes: I stopped reading there. The rest seems to be mainly ranting.